The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-11-03

, of the constitution of that State which guar
anteeS to an accused party in every criminal
prosecution speedy trial by an impartial jury
of the county or district in which the
offenSe is alleged TO have been committed.
As this is substantially the provision of the con
stitution of the United States on which the pc
ttioners now rely. il follows that even if their
position as to the operation and effect of that
constitution Is correct, the statute is not open
to the objection which is made against il. We
proceed then to consideration of the grounds of
challenge to Jurors Denker and Sanford to see
if in the actual administration of the rule Of the
statute by the court the rights of the defendants
under the constitution of the United States,
were in any way impaired.
The court then gives extracts from the
examination of Denker by the defense, says
he was challenged for cause by the defend
ants but before any decision was made
thereon he was questioned by the court and
the courts examination Is appended.
The opinion continues:
The court thereupon overruled the challenge,
but before the juror was accepted and sworn,
he was further examined by the counsel for
the defendants This examination also re-
printed from the record.
The court then says that the examinati
of the juror by the counsel for the defend
ants closed and he was examined by the at
torney for the State, and citations are given
from the questions and answers in this ex
animation. The opinion continues:
At the close of the examination neither party
challenged the juror peremptorily and he was
accepted and sworn. When this occurred il is
not denied that the defendants were still en-
titled to ls3 peremptory challenges, or about
that number. When Juror Sanford was called
he was first examined by the counsel for the de-
PENDANTS. THE examination is here quoted.
At the close of this examination on the part of
the defendants the juror was challenged on
their behalf for cause, and the attorney Tor the
State. after it was ascertained that all the
peremptary challenges of the defendants had
been exhausted. took up the examination Of the
juror The result of this examination is given,
as is the ruling of the court denying the
challenge to overrule for cause and stating that
as the peremptory challenges of the defense are
exhausted Sanford is juror totry the case. so
far as the other defendants are concerned.
This was accepted by both parties, the court
says "as a true statement of the then condition
of the case, )" and after some further examina
tion of the juror. which elected nothing OF inn
portance in connection with the present Inquiry,
ro peremptory challenge having been inter
posed by the State, Sanford was sworn as
Juror and the panel was thus complete.
This. so far as we have oeen
advised presents all there is in the record which
this court can consider touching the challenge
of these two jurors by the defendants for cause
In Reynolds VS.. the United States 9S L. S.. 145
to 1855, ii decided by this court that in order
to justify a reversal Of the judgment of the
Supreme Court OF the Territory of Utah for re
fusing % allow a challenge to juror in crm-
nal case on the ground that he had formed
ana GADTeSSSu an oDlulOH dS W Luc
issues to be tried, it must be
made clearly to appear that upon the evi-
dence the court ought to have found that the
juror had formed such an opinion that he could
not in law be deemed impartial The case must
be one in which it is manifest that the law left
nothing to the conscience or discretion of the
court. If such is the degree of strictness which
is required in ordinary cases of wTltS from one
court to another in the same general jurisdiction.
we ought to be careful that it is not at all
relaxed la a case like this when the ground
relied on for reversal by this court of the
Judgment of the highest court of q State is, that
the error complained of is so great as TO amount
in law to a denial by the State of trial by an
impartial jury to one who is accused of crime
We are unhesitatingly of the opinion that no
such case is disclosed by this record.
We come now TO consider thee objection that
defendant Spies was compelled by the court to
be a witness against himself. He voluntarily
offered himself as a witness in his own behalf
and by so doing he became bound to submit
himself to proper croSS-eXamnation to the
State, whether he had received a certain letter
which was shown. purporttng to have been
written by Johann Nost and addressed to him and
upon his saying that he had, the court allowed
the letter to be read in evidence against him.
This, it is claimed, was not proper cross
examination. 1t is not contended that the sub
lect to which the cross-eXamination related
was not pertinent to the issue to be tried, and
whether the cross examination must be confined
to matters pertinent to the testimony in chief,
or may be extended to matter in issue is GER
taiuly question of State law in the courts of a
State, and not of Federal law.
Something has been said in the argument
about an alleged unreasonable search and seiz-
IRE of papers and property of some of the de-
PENDANTS, and their use in evidence on the trial
of the case. Special reference is made in this
connection to the letter to Most. about which
Spies was.crosS examined, but we have not been
referred to any part of the record in which it
appears that objection was made to the use of
this evidence on that account, and upon
this point the supreme Court of the State in
sI,,+ ,4oI
with this motion remarks as follows: THE OBJ
lection that the letter was obtained from the
defendant by an unlawful seizure is made for
the first time in this court. II was not made on
the trial in the court below. Such Ian objection
as this, which is not suggested by the
nature of the offered evidence but de
pends on proofs of an outside fact. should have
been made on the trial. The defense should
have proved that the Most letter was one of the
letters Illegally seized by the police and should
then have moved to exclude or oppose its ad-
mission on the ground that 1t was obtained by
such illegal seizure. This was not done, and,
therefore, we cannot consider the constitutional
question supposed to be involved"
Even though the court was wrong
in saying that it did not APP
pear that the Most letter was one of the pa
pers illegally seized it still remains uncontra-
dicted that no objection was made in the trial
court to its admission on that account. To give
us Jurisdiction under section 200 Of the Revised
Statutes, because of denial by State court of
any title, right, privilege or immunity claimed
under the constitution, or any treaty or statute
of the United States it must appear that such
title right privilege or immunity was spec
tally set up or claimed at the proper time and
in the proper way. To be renewable the de-
csion must be against rights so set up or
claimed. As the Supreme Court of the State
was reviewing the decision of the trial court
TO make the question renewable here il must
appear that the claim made in that court
because the Supreme Court only author
zed TO review the judgment of that court
for errors committed there. and we can do no
more. This is not as seems TO he supposed by
one of the counsel for the petitioners a ques-
ton of waiver of right under the constitution
laws or treaties Of the United States, but a
question of claim If not set up. or claimed in
the proper court below, the Judgment of State
court in an action is conclusive, SO far as the
right of review here IS concerned. The
question whether the letter, if obtained
as claimed would have been competent
evidence IS not before us. and therefore no foun-
else of Our iurisdction As to the suggestion
by the counsel for petitioners. Spies and Fielden
that Spies having been born in Germany and
Fielden in Great Britain. they have been denied
bv the decision of the court below rights guar
auteed TO them by treaties between the
United States and their respective coun-
tries IL Is sufficient TO say that no such
questions were made and decided IN either OF
the courts below, and they cannot be raised in
this court for the first time Ne have not been
referred 10 any treaty, neither are we aware OF
any under which such question could be raised
Being OF the opinion therefore. that the Fed.
eral questions presented by the counsel for the
petitioners and which they say they desire to
argue are not in fact involved In the determi-
nation of the case AZ II appears on the face OF
the record, VIC deny the writ